Monthly Archive: May 2020

Lockdown Proponents Should Have the Burden of Proof

Seven weeks after the President recommended that Americans shelter in place and states issued lockdown orders to combat the Covid-19 virus, the process of reopening has begun in some parts of the country.   But in several states, including Michigan, New York, New Jersey, and California governors are moving slowly, insisting that science shows that many businesses and parks should remain closed and healthy people should continue to stay home and avoid others.  Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald has this piece in The Hill suggesting that the science is not clear that the lockdown has worked and that the consequences of sheltering in place may be worse than the disease.

Continue reading . . .

USCA9 Gets Quill-Lashing From Unanimous SCOTUS

The U.S. Supreme Court severely admonished the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today for reaching out to recast a case to present issues not raised by the parties. The opinion was unanimous, written by Justice Ginsburg. The Ninth Circuit panel, at the time of the recasting, consisted of Judges Reinhardt, Tashima, and Berzon.

In United States v. Sineneng-Smith, No. 19-67, the high court disposed of the case saying,  “we vacate the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remand the case for reconsideration shorn of the overbreadth inquiry interjected by the appellate panel and bearing a fair resemblance to the case shaped by the parties.” In judicial-speak, that is a stern rebuke. Continue reading . . .

Appeals Court: Judges Can Ignore Zero Bail Policy

California’s Fourth District Court of Appeals held last Tuesday that an emergency rule by the state’s Judicial Council authorizing  judges to give zero bail to those charged with nonviolent crimes is not mandatory.  Alaina Lancaster of the Recorder reports that the unanimous court asserted that “[t]he Judicial Council did not intend to suspend the array of statutes governing bail, as well as the superior court’s inherent authority, which allow the court to depart from the scheduled bail amount or impose bail conditions in individual cases under appropriate circumstances.”   The decision was announced in response to a San Diego Superior Court Judge’s decision to depart from the rule and set bail for defendants in order to “assure the appearance of the defendant or protect public safety.”

Continue reading . . .

Ramos Retroactivity

The U.S. Supreme Court moved swiftly today to resolve the question of whether its April 20 decision on nonunanimous juries applies retroactively to cases on federal habeas corpus. The correct answer is clearly “no.” Continue reading . . .

Zero Bail = More Crime

A Los Angeles County decision to eliminate bail for those arrested for so-called “low level” felonies is proving to be a bonus for habitual criminals.  The no-bail policy was instituted in late March to reduce the jail population and protect inmates from the Covid-19 virus.  Richard Winton at the Los Angeles Times reports that the no-bail policy has turned the police department into a revolving door where criminals are arrested, charged then released after a few hours to commit another crime.  Over a three-week period in April, habitual felon Eric Medina was arrested and released four times for stealing cars.  In the first 30 days of the policy LAPD has arrested and released 213 criminals multiple times for felonies such as car theft, which is not considered an important crime worthy of time in jail unless, of course, it happens to be your car.

UPDATE:  On Thursday, Alameda County Judge Thomas Reardon released suspected double-rapist Gregory Vien from jail pending trial to protect him from Covid-19.  DNA evidence linked Vien to two rapes in 1997.   The judge relied upon an advisory from California’s Judicial Counsel which recommends zero bail for those arrested for non-violent offenses.  Apparently Judge Reardon considers rape a non-violent offense.

 

Continue reading . . .